The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

For goodness sake, McG.

You need to differentiate two things here. If I had said that "Joe Nation is a big fat republican fool whose smelly mother doesn't bathe enough", that would be a personal attack.

But for me or anyone to point out a pattern of logical fallacy, and instances of it, is part of what makes up informed discussion.

0 Replies

And just as soon as you start pointing out these patterns to the liberals as you do the conservatives, maybe I will take you more seriously.

Until then, I have a difficult time considering your attacks as "informed discussion".

0 Replies

Geesch
Geesch, this topic has been pulled off point in a typical "attack the accuser instead of the facts." I really get bored with those who like to play this game of topic destruction.

Could we get back to the topic, please?

BBB

0 Replies

Perhaps we could all consider our "tone of voice" when disagreeing and that would make it a bit simplier. I'll try to do that. These discussions get so heated, it's difficult for all of us, I think to not derail the discussion by our attitudes.

Pistof posted this article about Meyer yesterday. Here seems to be the substance of Meyer's claim:

Quote:

Meyer's claim substantiates similar accounts by former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. But, the White House continues to deny the charges calling them "revisionist history" and claiming Iraq was "to the side" immediately after the attacks.

The assertion is corroborated by the Washington Post, which reported that President Bush personally signed a two-and-a-half page directive on September 17th, 2001, ordering the Pentagon to begin drawing up Iraq invasion plans. It is also corroborated by CBS News, which reported on September 4, 2002, that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq."

As a result of Bush's preoccupation with Saddam Hussein, the Administration diverted critical resources to Iraq and away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As USA Today reported, "In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Similarly, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) reported that in February of 2002 a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."

0 Replies

BBB

This is important stuff. It's foundational for profitable discussion, but it could certainly have its own thread. Being the helpful sort I am... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=636486#636486

0 Replies

Quote:

As a result of Bush's preoccupation with Saddam Hussein, the Administration diverted critical resources to Iraq and away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As USA Today reported, "In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Similarly, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) reported that in February of 2002 a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."

IIRC the plans to take down Saddam were put together in the Clinton era. He had been on the hit list for years. I think it was reasonable, once Afghanistan had been subdued and the largest Coalition ever built was on the ground there, to turn to Iraq as the next stop on the war against terror. The quote above basically says that Osama was as important as Saddam. Osama was some sickly guy hiding in a cave somewhere, with no real power. Saddam was still throwing Iraqis into his shredders and paying off the families of suicide bombers. What happened made sense to me, as it did to most people.

0 Replies

Blatham
Blatham, thank you very much.

---BBB Smile

0 Replies

Yawn.....I'm bored.....but can't wait for tomorrow morning.

0 Replies

Lovely piece on Clarke's book from NY Observer... http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage7.asp

0 Replies

Quote:

Clarke: First of all, the document I sent to her on Jan. 25, days after the administration started, the documents ought to be declassified and people can decide for themselves. That memorandum on Jan. 25 said I urgently need a meeting with the Cabinet to approve these plans, these strategies. we can get into semantical distinctions as to whether it was a plan or strategy or a series of decisions that had to be made, but on Jan. 25, I was saying we have a strategy, it needs these additional elements, the president has to make decisions about that so we can go forward.

And I think what you'll see if it's declassified and you compare it to where they came out on Sept. 4 is basically on Sept. 4, they adopted what I proposed on Jan. 25. And so the time in between was wasted.

Now, on the issue of whether or not I asked for a meeting with the president, I did. I asked for a meeting with the president several times beginning, in fact, before Dr. Rice even took office in the transition briefing. I said I have given this briefing to the vice president, I've given it to the secretary of state, I've given it now to you, I would like to give it to the president.

And what I was told was I could brief the president on terrorism after the policy development process had been completed.

Clarke says Rice testimony proved his claims

0 Replies

One thing that struck me from the audio fragments I heard. Asked about what Clarke wrote on Bush bringing up an attack on Iraq immediately after the Al-Qaeda attack of 9/11, Rice didn't deny this. She just repreated a few times that she "didn't remember" or "wasn't aware of" it.

At one point she went as far as defending the President in case he had done so (which at least suggests that he did, knowing how politics work), saying it would 'only have been logical'.

As logical as any case in which a specific international terrorist network, which has been known to be gunning for you for some time, attacks your captal city - and you consider in return attacking a dictatorship that hadn't been shown to maintain any connection with said group, but had been bothering you for some time, I guess ...

0 Replies

I think that Dr. Rice was over-coached. She also seemed to have a punch list of points that the 'powers that be' wanted her to make, whether they logically flowed from a direct question or not (such as on the Homeland Defense department and the Patriot Act).

It also seems to me that she might have been told that continuing to talk, talk, talk, would work; that out of deference, the commissioners would just let her go on and on. Why otherwise, did she try to override the voices of the commissioner who was trying to ask a question? Glad Kerry called her on it. It was very, very rude of her.

She was transparently political.

I bet that very few of the commissioners had any reason to be real pleased with her appearance there today. I hope that they ask more probing questions IF they are allowed to meet with her again in private. I think it is a mighty big IF right now.

0 Replies

That works both ways , sumac. They tried to put her on the ropes from the beginning and make her look bad but she proved to have her **** together which knocked them off balance.

The hearing was about her answers to their questions so it was right to let her fully answer and not cut her off, that was transparent.

Her first private interview was accompanied by only five of the ten Commission members, so the next private meeting may be for the other five.

0 Replies

Ditto sumac - she was to argumentative and unresponsive.

And I hate to say this but she needs new hair.

0 Replies

Amazing how people can see such different things.

Kerry, Benvenuto (whatever his name is) and Roemer were on a hunting mission, when the Commission is supposed to be about gathering information to prevent another attack against the US.

Kerry cursed and was flippant and rude during his questions. He grandstanded, trying to make political hay, and Rice shut him down.
I was so proud to be affiliated with such a strong woman. They tried to ask questions, make epic partisan statements designed to be today's partisan soundbites, and then cut her answers off to make herlook like she's "been caught".

She refused to let them do it. She had every right to complete her answers. She was there to ANSWER, not to have pies thrown at her.

Kerry was nasty, and he deserved to be thumped by a woman nationwide. Cool

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Amazing how people can see such different things.

The one accurate statement you posted.

See, you righties think this is just another a fight. A contest of wills.

Wrong.

This is about national security. Our safety.

Bush and Condi and Dick and all the rest fell asleep at the switch.

They simply can't blame their failure (OK, let's be fair: their part of the failure) on someone else.

This cuts right to the quick of what Bush portrays himself, of what he pretends to be: bold, brave, a popular wartime President, engaged, blahblahblah.

Everybody who watched or listened without their blinders and filters on saw and heard something very disturbing:

They let them slip in and hit us, and now they are trying to sweep it under the rug.

Not exactly reassuring for my peace of mind...

0 Replies

Nor mine. I was particularly perplexed by her comments (more than once) that she wasn't asked to do anything, as if she were merely a clerical worker who just responded to instructions from others, doesn't take or make independent initiative, tell others what to do, etc. She didn't sound like the National Security Advisor, but more like a note-taker.

0 Replies

Do Americans believe that the Bush (or Clinton) administration should have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks?

Not for the most part. The significant majority of Americans apparently agree with Bush when he said: "Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack. And I'm convinced any other government would have, too." Just 27% of the American public says that the administration should have been able to prevent the attacks, while 67% say the administration did all that it could have been expected to.
Should Bush Administration Have Been Able to
Prevent 9/11 Attacks?

March 26-28, 2004

As is true with all questions relating to administration policies, the responses are differentiated by partisanship, but in this instance, not as much as is the case for many other issues:

Should Bush Administration Have Been Able to
Prevent 9/11 Attacks?

March 26-28, 2004

Only 38% of Democrats, who could be expected to be most critical of the Bush administration, believe that Bush and his staff could have prevented the attacks. Few Republicans agree.

At the same time, the public feels that both the Bush and the Clinton administrations could have done more to prevent terrorism before 9/11:

Did Administration Do All That Could Be
Expected to Prevent Terrorist Attacks?

March 26-28, 2004

In other words, while the majority of Americans say that both the Bush and the Clinton administrations didn't do all that they could have been expected to, the public apparently is not willing to say that the current administration was negligent enough to be held responsible for the attacks.

Americans are actually a little more likely to believe the Clinton administration should have done more to help prevent terrorism than they are to believe that about the Bush administration. This seems logical. Bush had been in office only about eight months when the attacks took place, and it has become increasingly clear as a result of recent news reports and testimony at the 9/11 commission that Bill Clinton and his administration were well aware of the problems posed by terrorists and Osama bin Laden throughout Clinton's two terms in the 1990s.

--------------
Reality check.

(edit--Out of practice. Got this from Gallup.)

0 Replies

Two weeks ago's reality check.

Please do come back with the update when Gallup has it.

0 Replies

Two weeks ago....after Clarke's testimony. You'd think he'd have scored a blip for the left...

0 Replies

The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know